Best surgical approach for splenic flexure colon cancers: Extended versus segmental resection?

Treatment Differences for Splenic Flexure Cancers in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Backgrounds Colorectal surgeons worldwide have differing opinions on the best way to handle rare cases of splenic flexure colon cancers (SFCs). Although the majority of reviews indicate no significant variation in oncological outcomes among the three different procedure types used to treat SFCs, surgeons still exhibit diversity in their practices. This study determined the treatment preferences of colorectal surgeons in Saudi Arabia. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional study evaluated the management of colorectal surgeons in handling SFC cases. We utilized a validated questionnaire developed by Manceau et al., consisting of 14 questions. Emails and phone numbers of members of the Saudi Society of Colorectal Surgery (SSCRS) were gathered. Google Forms surveys were administered from October 1-30, 2023. Results A response rate of 66% (58/88) was obtained among questioned colorectal surgeons. Their responses revealed that there was no consensus regarding the preferred procedure to treat SFCs. The most common treatment reported was segmental colectomy (SC) 21/58 (36.2%), followed by subtotal colectomy (STC) (19/58, 32.8%) and left hemicolectomy (LHC) (18/58, 31%). There was a strong consensus of 96% (56/58) of the respondents in favor of using stapler anastomosis rather than hand sewing. The frequency of performing SC, STC, and LHC in France was 70%, 13%, and 17%, respectively, compared to 36.2%, 32.8%, and 31% in Saudi Arabia, with a p-value of 0.001. The surgeons' preferred approaches to managing SFCs utilizing laparoscopic, open, or hand-aided in France versus Saudi Arabia were 63%, 31%, and 11%, respectively, compared to 84.5%, 8.6%, and 6.9%, with a p-value of 0.001. Conclusion A significant disparity exists regarding the treatment of SFCs between colorectal surgeons in France and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there is a lack of consensus among colorectal surgeons in Saudi Arabia regarding the surgical management of SFCs. Hence, it is imperative for the SCRSS to assemble a panel of experts to reach a consensus for the most appropriate and effective treatment of SFCs.

Tata Memorial Centre Evidence Based Management of Colorectal cancer

This review article examines the evidence-based management of colorectal cancers, focusing on topics characterized by ongoing debates and evolving evidence. To contribute to the scientific discourse, we intentionally exclude subjects with established guidelines, concentrating instead on areas where the current understanding is dynamic. Our analysis encompasses a thorough exploration of critical themes, including the evidence surrounding complete mesocolic excision and D3 lymphadenectomy in colon cancers. Additionally, we delve into the evolving landscape of perioperative chemotherapy in both colon and rectal cancers, considering its nuanced role in the context of contemporary treatment strategies. Advancements in surgical techniques are a pivotal aspect of our discussion, with an emphasis on the utilization of minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopy and robotic surgery in both colon and rectal cancers, including advanced rectal cases. Moving beyond conventional radical procedures, we scrutinize the feasibility and implications of endoscopic resections for small tumors, explore the paradigm of organ preservation in locally advanced rectal cancers, and assess the utility of total neoadjuvant therapy in the current treatment landscape. Our final segment reviews pivotal trials that have significantly influenced the management of colorectal liver and peritoneal metastasis.

Impact of routine preoperative 18 FDG PET/CT on the surgical management of primary colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

Determine the usefulness of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (¹⁸ FDG-PET/CT) in the preoperative setting of colorectal cancer (CRC), assessing its impact on changes in management strategy.

METHODS

Retrospective study of CRC patients who underwent preoperative ¹⁸ FDG-PET/CT and CT staging scans in a single referral center. The agreement between ¹⁸ FDG-PET/CT, contrast-enhanced CT, and colonoscopy for the surgical location was compared using the κ coefficient. Maximum standardized uptake (SUV_max ) value was obtained. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-five patients were included. ¹⁸ FDG-PET/CT improved tumor localization in 84.6% (165/195) of cases (κ value 0.798, p < 0.001), thus correcting endoscopic errors 69.7% (30/43) of the time. In patients with incomplete colonoscopies, ¹⁸ FDG-PET/CT detected synchronous tumors in 2.5% (5/195) patients, overlooked by CT staging scans. Based on extracolonic ¹⁸ FDG-uptake, the second primary malignancy was diagnosed in 7(3.6%,7/195) patients and total accuracy for lymph node and distant metastasis was 66.1% and 98.4%, respectively. The treatment plan was altered in 30 (15.4%, 30/196) patients. There was a significant association between the SUV_max and tumor size (odds ratio [OR] 4.254, p = 0.003) and the depth of tumor invasion (OR 1.696, p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on its ability to aid in preoperative evaluation and definitively alter surgical treatment planning, ¹⁸ FDG-PET/CT should be further evaluated in primary CRC.